‘Doonesbury’ on the Op-Ed page: Readers react

The decision by The Times to move this week's "Doonesbury" comic strip, which is taking on Texas' abortion law, to the Op-Ed page has prompted dozens of emails from readers, not to mention a Twitter campaign to restore the strip to the comics page.

Most readers said they appreciated that the strips weren't canceled, and many supported the move to the Op-Ed page, for a variety of reasons. Others saw no reason for the move. And a few made tongue-in-cheek suggestions of topics that could move to the comics page.

Here is a sampling of the response:  

Congratulations to the L.A. Times for being so forward-thinking as to put this week's strips on the Op-Ed page. By running them in this section you are so brave considering the subject matter. You have performed a public service to ALL women, not to just those poor souls who must live in Texas. My hat is off to you guys.  You make me proud!
--Selby Segall, Los Angeles

Thank you for not burying "Doonesbury," or worse censoring it this week. And a wise move to put it on the Op-Ed pages. Maybe a few folks that could benefit by the obvious might finally understand. But probably not.
--David Reid, Hollywood

Thank you, thank you for your article and for deciding to publish the "Doonesbury" strips regarding the Texas law affecting women. The Op-Ed section is an excellent place for this important subject. My husband and I support your decision.
--Anne-Marie Kaukonen, San Diego

I applaud the Times for publishing the "Doonesbury" comic strip. I did not see justified reasoning for moving it to the Op-Ed section, but thanks for bringing more attention to it. While you are moving information around based on the nature of their content, may I suggest you put the Republican platform in the comics? 
--Karen Suarez, Monrovia

OK, so you move "Doonsebury" to Op-Ed from the comics -- so be it. Now move Goldberg from Op-Ed to the comics -- fair's fair.
--Norm Toback, Studio City

I was so pleased to see this cartoon strip in the Op-Ed pages, but my reason has nothing to do with its content. Unlike its regular home in the funnies, where the type is so microscopic that I can rarely make out the dialogue, at least in the Opinion pages, the text is readable. Oh, happy day!
--Todd Koerner, Hermosa Beach

I disagree with your decision to move this week's "Doonesbury" strips to the Op-Ed page. They should be on the front page of the paper!
--Mike Feinman, Costa Mesa

Odd that when "Doonesbury" took the late Saint Ronnie, Dubya and even Obama to task you did not put him on the Opinion pages, but you do it now as GOP governors want to take us back to the '50s with intrusions into women’s reproductive lives.
--Virgil Jose, Apple Valley

I'm writing to express my disgust with the L.A. Times' decision to run this week's "Doonesbury" on the Op-Ed page instead of in its regular spot on the comics page. My pre-teen and teen daughters read the comics daily, and I would rather have them be exposed to the intelligent, relevant satire of Garry Trudeau pertaining to real-life issues than say, the writhing pseudo-feminist characters of "9 Chickweed Lane."
--Mari Reynolds, Huntington Beach

Moving this week's "Doonesbury" off the comics page? Are the convictions of the fourth estate so weak so as to avoid even a hint of controversy? There was a time when provoking discussion was welcomed, and frankly, the "Doonesbury" strips are an excellent way to do that -- they're lightly provoking, but not so shocking that it's impossible to have a reasonable debate about them.
--Scott Frank, Los Angeles

In addition to running on the Op-Ed page, this week's strips are being posted daily on the Opinion L.A. blog: Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday

--Deirdre Edgar

 

Comments

[Torsten Adair]

Question:
When Walt Kelly had controversial storylines in Pogo, did the L.A. Times run them on the comic page? Or did the paper run the alternate "Bunny Strips" instead?

Did Simple J. Malarky ever grace the comics page?
How about when Khrushchev was a pig, and Castro was a goat?

[jeff prescott]

No newspaper that supports freedom of speech should be so afraid as to have to move a comic to op-ed.
Either run Doonesbury...or cancel it.

[Fiamma]

Yes kudos to the LAT for running the Doonesbury strip this week. I'm currently reading it on the NYT crossword/games/comics page where it's free.

[FutureUser]

Shame on Doonesbury for taking a very personal matter and trying to repackage it as "humor". Perhaps a more appropriate way to make the topic of abortion understood, would be to follow the example of the new federally-mandated cigarette packages: Pictures of abortions in progress should be mounted on billboards near every abortion center.

[Daniel]

"Doonesbury moves to op ed page this week"

So it reads on the front page of the Times website, today 3/24. This is an ongoing problem with the Times, continuing to post old news as though it happened today.

Other favorites are the postings that run perennially:

Community
Backstage at The Times on Oscar night
Academy Awards: It's about art, not political correctness
Artist looks back on a year of drawing the L.A. Times

The Oscars were only a month ago, I guess there must be someone still interested, and as far as the artist goes, I didn't realize that it meant the upcoming year; only 10 months to go.

This is the mentality of old school publishing, and the reason newspapers are in rapid decline. This information distribution model lacks immediacy. What the Times provides in daily news is offset by filler.